GA: Forfeiture answer pleading illegal search and seizure has to plead facts

“Loveless also complains that the trial court erred by striking his Answer when he had raised therein a sufficient defense, namely that the search and seizure occurred in violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, the Answer did not include those factual disclosures that the statute required. … In the absence of a legally sufficient answer, the trial court was without authority to consider the suppression issue.” Loveless v. State, 2016 Ga. App. LEXIS 306 (May 27, 2016).

“[W]e find no error in the trial court’s finding that Officer Beretta had ‘extensive experience and expertise in performing speed estimations’ and we do not believe the estimate of 35 or 40 miles per hour in a 25 mile-per-hour zone was in ‘slight excess of the legal speed limit’ so as to foreclose a finding of reasonable suspicion based on the visual estimate.” People v. Nice, 2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 428 (6th Dist. May 26, 2016).*

This entry was posted in Burden of proof, Forfeiture, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.